Health Care Bill in the Supreme Court

[AlmostJesus]

When you incarcerate someone you are taking away their freedoms, including the freedom to look after their own basic needs, including food, clothing and healthcare.

true

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

I appreciate you helping me define slippery slope. I knew what it meant. Again my belief and that of others is further confiscation by the govt of private wealth will only make the govt hungrier for more. This is the slippery slope. You dont have to believe that premise.. I do believe that hence a slippery slope. This is the point where I draw the line that the feds should not take more of my money. Also, once we allow the govt to do this they will force us into other similar positions. It sets bad precedent.

I assume from your posts that you oppose obamacare because you think we should have nationalized healthcare or a single payor? If not please explain why you think Obamacare is bad. My view is you dont see it being left enough. I look forward to your explanation.

I was not insinuating that you didn't understand the definition of a slippery slope. I was backing up my claim that it's a fallacy. And yes, what you said to clarify your position sounds exactly like a fallacy. Your argument is that once the government crosses this line it's going to lead to general socialism (more specifically, with regard to how this train of thought came up, Nazism). I'm fine with the idea you're taking a stand here, but it is fallacious to suggest that there's no point past this line that restraint could occur. Other than playing to my sense of fear and general belief that humans can suck most of the time, the line of reasoning that goes from what would be this precedent to fascism is not even clear, let alone logically necessary. It's sensationalism.

You look forward to my explanation.....hard to tell, but is that sarcasm? No, my issue with Obamacare is not that it isn't "left" enough. It's that it's a terrible compromise of a plan that reeks of design by committee - all it's going to do is throw sugar into the engine of both government and healthcare reform. The politics of a plan are secondary.

I agree with you. Everyone who can contribute and help the poorest members SHOULD contribute. People like yourself who genuinely care about them should give to organizations which hep the poor. There's a big difference between the SHOULD and involuntary taxation that confiscates wealth (it's taken out of my paycheck with no choice as to where it goes!). That is what I I have a problem with.

Again we're not talking about contributing. We're talking about forced taxation and confiscation of wealth. Those are two different things, and I have no problem with the first.

The issue with what you're saying is that it guarantees nothing.

If I'm not mistaken [I'm being honest here - I could be wrong and I'm not trying to be glib], based on your previous posts, the issue is not exactly taxation. You keep saying that, but I seem to recall you being okay with taxation to pay for certain things - the police for example. That right there is forced confiscation of wealth. It's taxation without being able to choose where it goes. So the issue is not actually taxation but the extent of that taxation.

I agree, there's a lot to cut out of the government. I know that you and I would still disagree on a lot of the rest. Cutting that stuff is a proposition I would at least entertain. But a society needs to provide certain things to its members - at minimum, the basics of life: food, shelter, protection, and healthcare. Otherwise why join? If you're willing to accept involuntary confiscation of wealth for some "essentials" I'm just trying to add one to that list.

Actually the slippery slope has already happened. When income taxes were introduced, they were a paltry 1-2%. Since that time government has grown, and sequestered more and more private wealth. Now goverment spending is about 25% of GDP, and if you listen to Democrats that's not enough. They want even more! I see a big problem when 1 out of every 4 dollars is taken by the Federal government.

No, the slippery slope we were talking about is the US turning into a fascist country. That has not happened.

But to respond to the gist of what you're saying as opposed to the literal - yes, government has grown. So has the country. The consequences of that (needing more money) does not support your slippery slope at all.

And to go even further to what you're not saying - yeah, as I mentioned before there's a lot of things you need to cut from the government. It has grown so large and tangled that it absolutely needs "cleaning". There's so much obfuscation I'm surprised anything is working at all.

The single mom on Medicaid and welfare who has three kids, smokes and an expensive cellphone. She demonstrates the inability to make decisions that would benefit her and get her out of poverty. Much of that is due to the no-strings-attached welfare system, whereby you can make whatever self-destructive decisions you want, and just keep putting your hand out for more taxpayer dollars.

Example number 2. The working poor person who claims they can't afford to see a doctor ("That doctor wanted $75!) yet spends $100 per week on cigarettes.


People should be given every opportunity to make stupid decisions, and to suffer the consequences. When you reward stupid decisions with free goodies from the taxpayers, you only encourage even more stupid decisions. If someone is really that irrational and stupid, then yes, they should die.

Okay, again, and not to guilt trip, the kids have to suffer there. You're okay with that. Do you think the police should intervene if a parent is physically abusing their child? Because that's what this situation is.

But please, let's ignore that. Do you have no....empathy? Do you really think it's purely the smoker's fault that they smoke? That no responsibility should be placed on the corporations whose sole job is to convince him to keep smoking? Or that fat people are 100% responsible for their state? Are you as physically healthy as possible? Have you never felt the power of your will fail? People are not always rational! The punishment for that absolutely should not be death. Again, you claim abhorrence for the deaths and pain of socialism, but I daresay if stupid mistakes were punishable by death you'd have a bigger toll on your hand. Not purchasing health insurance is not that hard of a decision to understand for a 20 year old - especially when you take into account how the mind works (availability bias comes to mind).

And again what you're characterizing as "free goodies" is anything but. You make it sound like they're getting iPhones for not getting insurance. That's a gross characterization of my position. Maybe the system we have right now can be abused and somehow that's exactly what's happening. Maybe any system can be abused. But on principle, which is what we're talking about, providing healthcare for everyone is not "free goodies".

 

[EctopicFetus]

1) The slippery slope is not a fallacy the question is where does it stop. As veers pointed out we started with no fed income tax which I think most would agree is not feasible. The fed needs some money. Then we went to 2% then was up to 70+% and now the top line is down to 35%. Would you say the slippery slope doesnt exist? 2% to 70%.. that is in my opinion of a slippery slope. I think anyone who has kids understands this.

My point is 2 fold 1) by saying the mandate is ok we open up a NEW door where the feds can tell us what to buy from private industry 2) it will help push a run to tax the successful people in our society.

2) Please explain what a perfect healthcare system would look like to you.

It is fine if you want to buy the Buffet point on taxes but this is quite a bit of a fallacy due to social security which some consider a tax (I look at it as forced retirement which screws blacks, (ill be waiting to defend that position if needed) and the reality of the low capital gains taxes.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

1) The slippery slope is not a fallacy the question is where does it stop. As veers pointed out we started with no fed income tax which I think most would agree is not feasible. The fed needs some money. Then we went to 2% then was up to 70+% and now the top line is down to 35%. Would you say the slippery slope doesnt exist? 2% to 70%.. that is in my opinion of a slippery slope. I think anyone who has kids understands this.

My point is 2 fold 1) by saying the mandate is ok we open up a NEW door where the feds can tell us what to buy from private industry 2) it will help push a run to tax the successful people in our society.

2) Please explain what a perfect healthcare system would look like to you.

It is fine if you want to buy the Buffet point on taxes but this is quite a bit of a fallacy due to social security which some consider a tax (I look at it as forced retirement which screws blacks, (ill be waiting to defend that position if needed) and the reality of the low capital gains taxes.

What?

Yes, the slippery slope is a fallacy. What do I need to do to prove it to you? I thought 4 links would suffice...apparently not. The fallacious part is exactly what you describe - where does it stop? You're providing no reason why restraint isn't possible. In fact, as of this post, you're shooting your argument in the foot because you admit it has gone from 70% to 35%. Restraint. Yes, I would say the slippery slope doesn't exist.....unless the slope you're describing is more of a dip that goes back up. I'm not sure what kids have to do with this unless you're suggesting that you need child-like reasoning to accept a slippery slope argument. In that case I agree with you.


Your point: 1) Yeah, I'm not arguing we should do that. 2) We already do that.

2) The perfect healthcare system is a team of beautiful doctors administering ambrosia to everybody in the US beginning with the CA and moving through to NY. Then the non-contiguous states. Ambrosia in this context is not only food of the gods, but cures all diseases and is more preventative care than an RN wearing a clown costume.

The point is I'm not going to answer that question seriously unless you tell me what you're looking for. You sound very much like you're on a witch hunt wanting me to identify myself as liberal or democrat or.....librocrat. Go ahead and do that if you want to. I don't agree with everything democrats have to say. "Liberal" is a bit more nebulous but I tend to not agree with everything there either. I don't have the perfect healthcare system. I never stated I do. The one we have isn't going to last, nor is Obamacare.

You're making assumptions about me - I never said anything about the "Buffet point" on taxes. I'm aware of what that point is, but I honestly have no idea why you're bringing it up. Rail on me if you will (and you have a perfect right to since I've been a little less than understanding in this post), but the reason why you're bringing it up escapes me. In all seriousness (that is, without sarcasm) I would love for you to defend you point about blacks and low capital gains tax if you would. I'm just not sure what you're getting at here, but it sounds interesting at minimum.

 

[GeneralVeers]

What?

Yes, the slippery slope is a fallacy. What do I need to do to prove it to you? I thought 4 links would suffice...apparently not. The fallacious part is exactly what you describe - where does it stop? You're providing no reason why restraint isn't possible. In fact, as of this post, you're shooting your argument in the foot because you admit it has gone from 70% to 35%. Restraint. Yes, I would say the slippery slope doesn't exist.....unless the slope you're describing is more of a dip that goes back up. I'm not sure what kids have to do with this unless you're suggesting that you need child-like reasoning to accept a slippery slope argument. In that case I agree with you.

So you can't possibly see our argument that letting the government confiscate some wealth would eventually lead to more and more wealth confiscation? The tax rate is a bad example of the "slippery slope" argument. In the 1950's it peaked at 90%, however few wealthy paid anything close to that due to large loopholes built in. While we have a 35% rate now, the loopholes are much smaller. The slippery slope can be seen in two areas:

1. Government spending. Typically has averaged about 21% of GDP for most of the post-1950's era. Over the last 10 years this has gone up to 25% and is projected to go even higher as the government spends more on programs than the rate of inflation. This is indirect wealth confiscation, as eventually the government will have to confiscate private wealth to pay its unsustainable debts.

2. Percentage of people not paying Federal taxes (I am excluding Medicare and payroll taxes). The percentage who do not pay ANY Federal taxes or who get a tax benefit has increased from single digits in the 1950's to around 50% now. This is the slippery slope of cost shifting, making the "wealthy" pay for the "poor". It's a dangerous slope to be on, because once we hit over 50%, there is no limit on what goodies the poor and middle class can vote for themselves as long as it's paid for by the "evil rich".

The point is I'm not going to answer that question seriously unless you tell me what you're looking for. You sound very much like you're on a witch hunt wanting me to identify myself as liberal or democrat or.....librocrat. Go ahead and do that if you want to. I don't agree with everything democrats have to say. "Liberal" is a bit more nebulous but I tend to not agree with everything there either. I don't have the perfect healthcare system. I never stated I do. The one we have isn't going to last, nor is Obamacare.

I actually agree with you on this. Every healthcare system is going to be a tradeoff between four things: 1. Coverage, 2. Taxes, 3. Cost, 4. Rationing.

As you adjust things in one area like increasing the number of people covered, the other three items tend to change, often in unexpected ways.

For me the "optimal system", meaning one that covers the MOST people (not everyone) at the lowest cost to taxpayers, with a minimum amount of government rationing would be a free market system of catastrophic and long-term care insurance with a BASIC state-run safety net for the truly destitute. The Federal government would have no place in administering, regulating, or paying for any healthcare delivery in this country. Would everyone be covered? No, some people would choose not to even get affordable catastrophic insurance. Would everyone get the latest whiz-bang treatments? No, depending on their coverage and ability to pay out of pocket. Would elderly demented, bed-bound patients get $1 million of care in the last 2 months of their lives? Absolutely not.

You're making assumptions about me - I never said anything about the "Buffet point" on taxes.

The argument against the "Buffet Rule" is that it's double taxation. The money I put into an investment account from which I get capital gains has already been taxed at a rate as high as 35% if like most people it comes from salary. By taxing the capital gains at 30% or higher you are going to prevent people from investing in stocks, which would lead to stock market contraction, and destruction of the 401K holdings of seniors and others who rely on fixed incomes.

 

[MikeDMD]

Using the buzz phrase "slippery slope" when describing health care sounds an awful like Fox News to me.

 

[EctopicFetus]

1) the term is slippery slope.. not slippery slope til it falls off a cliff.

When we go from having no fed income tax to a 1-2% deal to 90% is a slippery slope. We simply have now backtracked to a ridiculouly high 35%.

Veers, its not the 4 things.. There is a well established Iron triangle of health care.. 3 things make this up. Access quality and cost. These are the true tradeoffs in healthcare. In america we have high costs with high quality and decent access.

BTW its not blacks and capital gains.. its blacks and social security..

 

[AlmostJesus]

I actually agree with you on this. Every healthcare system is going to be a tradeoff between four things: 1. Coverage, 2. Taxes, 3. Cost, 4. Rationing.

As you adjust things in one area like increasing the number of people covered, the other three items tend to change, often in unexpected ways.

For me the "optimal system", meaning one that covers the MOST people (not everyone) at the lowest cost to taxpayers, with a minimum amount of government rationing would be a free market system of catastrophic and long-term care insurance with a BASIC state-run safety net for the truly destitute. The Federal government would have no place in administering, regulating, or paying for any healthcare delivery in this country. Would everyone be covered? No, some people would choose not to even get affordable catastrophic insurance. Would everyone get the latest whiz-bang treatments? No, depending on their coverage and ability to pay out of pocket. Would elderly demented, bed-bound patients get $1 million of care in the last 2 months of their lives? Absolutely not.

When you use a system like this, you start to run into serious ethical dilemmas and you get politicians preaching that we will have death panels and the government or corporations will be deciding who gets to live and die. The populous of the US would likely not go with this idea.
Maybe we need to be looking at educating individuals about end of life issues, wills, etc. If you have a private health insurance plan that is required by the government, the insurance plan could offer financial incentive for creation of a living will. This would lower end of life costs and give the patient the right to die in the way they desire. Thus, instead of having the ethical dilemmas we have right now with the demented bed bound patients, their wishes will be known and we can avoid these situations.
In order to have health care reform work, we need to have everyone covered. Once you start dealing with patients without insurance, then you start running into ethical issues regarding how much care to provide and how much care one is required to provide.

 

[GeneralVeers]

When you use a system like this, you start to run into serious ethical dilemmas and you get politicians preaching that we will have death panels and the government or corporations will be deciding who gets to live and die. The populous of the US would likely not go with this idea.
Maybe we need to be looking at educating individuals about end of life issues, wills, etc. If you have a private health insurance plan that is required by the government, the insurance plan could offer financial incentive for creation of a living will. This would lower end of life costs and give the patient the right to die in the way they desire. Thus, instead of having the ethical dilemmas we have right now with the demented bed bound patients, their wishes will be known and we can avoid these situations.
In order to have health care reform work, we need to have everyone covered. Once you start dealing with patients without insurance, then you start running into ethical issues regarding how much care to provide and how much care one is required to provide.

Living Wills don't help much once a patient is demented or in critical condition. The family often makes an emotionally-based decision "Doctor, do everything!" and then we are stuck wasting millions of dollar. I'm all for the "Death Panels" when it comes to taxpayer money being spent.

 

[deleted109597]

Two physicians can sign a DNR in the abscence of family.

If you want to see an ICU that has a good purpose, go to a SICU/TICU. If you want to see taxpayer money being wasted, go to a MICU.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Living Wills don't help much once a patient is demented or in critical condition. The family often makes an emotionally-based decision "Doctor, do everything!" and then we are stuck wasting millions of dollar. I'm all for the "Death Panels" when it comes to taxpayer money being spent.

Simply I am for rationing. IMO we put a cap on medicare. If you hit that cap you have to pay for a good chunk of the costs (im for about 50% but would be fine with up to 100%). We have to limit people wasting money because the money being wasted isnt theirs. This is one of the MANY problems with our current system.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Simply I am for rationing. IMO we put a cap on medicare. If you hit that cap you have to pay for a good chunk of the costs (im for about 50% but would be fine with up to 100%). We have to limit people wasting money because the money being wasted isnt theirs. This is one of the MANY problems with our current system.

Of course you hear the cries of "But you would let people die then!"

I guess the question is, are we willing to risk our entire society collapsing because we can't say no to people? Are we going to mortgage the entire country's future just for political appeasement now?

We have two terrible alternatives from which to choose:

1. Bankruptcy for the entire country with poverty, social chaos and possibly violence ensuing. This is the end result that occurs when a country can no longer inflate its currency to pay off debts.

2. Rationing of care, and making decisions on who lives or dies.

Which would one would everyone pick?

 

[FulfilledDeer]

So you can't possibly see our argument that letting the government confiscate some wealth would eventually lead to more and more wealth confiscation? The tax rate is a bad example of the "slippery slope" argument. In the 1950's it peaked at 90%, however few wealthy paid anything close to that due to large loopholes built in. While we have a 35% rate now, the loopholes are much smaller. The slippery slope can be seen in two areas:

1. Government spending. Typically has averaged about 21% of GDP for most of the post-1950's era. Over the last 10 years this has gone up to 25% and is projected to go even higher as the government spends more on programs than the rate of inflation. This is indirect wealth confiscation, as eventually the government will have to confiscate private wealth to pay its unsustainable debts.

2. Percentage of people not paying Federal taxes (I am excluding Medicare and payroll taxes). The percentage who do not pay ANY Federal taxes or who get a tax benefit has increased from single digits in the 1950's to around 50% now. This is the slippery slope of cost shifting, making the "wealthy" pay for the "poor". It's a dangerous slope to be on, because once we hit over 50%, there is no limit on what goodies the poor and middle class can vote for themselves as long as it's paid for by the "evil rich".

I can't see that it logically leads to more and more wealth confiscation. There's always time for restraint. Especially when we're not really arguing about percentages as much as services - I'm not bartering for another 1% or anything as much as I am bartering for certain things to be covered. Much less frightening to me (since I think there are limits to the things that can reasonably be asked to be covered that stop the percentage before 100%).

You have a decent point on 1. that I generally agree with. "Broadly" is a better term than "generally". I think you're discounting the rate of inflation of technology (a term I just made up) - ex: an Air Force airplane in the 50's cost a lot less, even adjusting for inflation, than today. So it makes sense we're going to be spending more for the same...."effect". But how much that affects your underlying point that we need to spend less on less stuff I'm not willing to venture a guess.

With 2. you're assuming we live in a perfect democracy. Not even close. While I don't think it's an accurate statistic at all, the "99%" is a decent way of suggesting that. If the odds were really that way in the country, what you are saying would already have come to pass.

REGARDLESS, the specific point I was making back when this first got started is the your assertion that we're on a slippery slope to Fascism, isn't even close to valid. That's all. What you and EctopicFetus are doing right now is equivocating the colloquial idea of "slippery slope" with the technical sense.

I actually agree with you on this. Every healthcare system is going to be a tradeoff between four things: 1. Coverage, 2. Taxes, 3. Cost, 4. Rationing.

As you adjust things in one area like increasing the number of people covered, the other three items tend to change, often in unexpected ways.

For me the "optimal system", meaning one that covers the MOST people (not everyone) at the lowest cost to taxpayers, with a minimum amount of government rationing would be a free market system of catastrophic and long-term care insurance with a BASIC state-run safety net for the truly destitute. The Federal government would have no place in administering, regulating, or paying for any healthcare delivery in this country. Would everyone be covered? No, some people would choose not to even get affordable catastrophic insurance. Would everyone get the latest whiz-bang treatments? No, depending on their coverage and ability to pay out of pocket. Would elderly demented, bed-bound patients get $1 million of care in the last 2 months of their lives? Absolutely not.

Meh, close enough. If I understood how, I'd be inserting that meme of the stick figure saying that. But since I don't....just imagine that right here. At minimum this sounds workable, so I would appreciate it if this were the option right now. Unfortunately it isn't.

The argument against the "Buffet Rule" is that it's double taxation. The money I put into an investment account from which I get capital gains has already been taxed at a rate as high as 35% if like most people it comes from salary. By taxing the capital gains at 30% or higher you are going to prevent people from investing in stocks, which would lead to stock market contraction, and destruction of the 401K holdings of seniors and others who rely on fixed incomes.

I wasn't aware that Buffett was in favor of raising the capital gains tax - my understanding was that the "rule" talks about minimum tax rate. I guess I'll take a look again. However, I still don't see the relevance.

1) the term is slippery slope.. not slippery slope til it falls off a cliff.

When we go from having no fed income tax to a 1-2% deal to 90% is a slippery slope. We simply have now backtracked to a ridiculouly high 35%.

No. I'm not going to let you say that there's this terrible slippery slope we're on and in the same breath (or what I'm imagining as the same breath) admit to a giant "recovery" from the slope. That's not a slippery slope - that's a gentle incline that goes in both directions with a lot of traction either way. Even veers, who supports your general points, admits this is a bad example.

Living Wills don't help much once a patient is demented or in critical condition. The family often makes an emotionally-based decision "Doctor, do everything!" and then we are stuck wasting millions of dollar. I'm all for the "Death Panels" when it comes to taxpayer money being spent.

In total agreement.

 

[deleted65604]

I think the following video is important. We simply can't spend more right now as a country. We are robbing our children by racking up a debt whose interest will cripple our country.

http://youtu.be/mqbnn9VKo0E

 

[yappy]

#2 is the correct decision. But let economics decide not people. You get some sort of benfit until it's used up. Then you must pay for the care your self. If you failed to plan or are just unlucky ... well that's too bad but we simply cannot afford it anymore.

Also, we need to bump up the age limit to adjust for increase in life span & allow tax breaks for physicians that give free care to people.

We have two terrible alternatives from which to choose:

1. Bankruptcy for the entire country with poverty, social chaos and possibly violence ensuing. This is the end result that occurs when a country can no longer inflate its currency to pay off debts.

2. Rationing of care, and making decisions on who lives or dies.

Which would one would everyone pick?

 

[FulfilledDeer]

I think the following video is important. We simply can't spend more right now as a country. We are robbing our children by racking up a debt whose interest will cripple our country.

http://youtu.be/mqbnn9VKo0E

Wow....that guy is a raging hemorrhoid.

Your point stands though. I'm not sure anybody is suggesting that "The Buffett Rule" is going to solve our problem - I think the point is the perceived "fairness" of the current situation. But if we're looking at reducing the debt just one approach (conservative vs. liberal) isn't going to cut it. The reason people can be so entrenched in their position is that there's valid points on both sides, so it's not as if one is clearly wrong.

 

[Marcus Brody]

Wow....that guy is a raging hemorrhoid.

Your point stands though. I'm not sure anybody is suggesting that "The Buffett Rule" is going to solve our problem - I think the point is the perceived "fairness" of the current situation. But if we're looking at reducing the debt just one approach (conservative vs. liberal) isn't going to cut it. The reason people can be so entrenched in their position is that there's valid points on both sides, so it's not as if one is clearly wrong.

There is no fairness in something that is inherently unjust. Fairness as in equality of treatment depends on the fairness of the treatment itself. If a few slaves escape is that "unfair" to those who remain?

Sorry to butt in here. My 2 cents.

 

[FulfilledDeer]

There is no fairness in something that is inherently unjust. Fairness as in equality of treatment depends on the fairness of the treatment itself. If a few slaves escape is that "unfair" to those who remain?

Sorry to butt in here. My 2 cents.

Oh, I wasn't commenting on the rule itself, just that I don't believe it is being touted as a solution to all our financial problems like the guy in the video seems to suggest.

 

[deleted109597]

Then what, pray tell, is it being touted as? A more fair system?
Oh, and for the record, Obama's tax rate was less than his secretary's this year too. I guess we should change it to the "Obama Rule" instead.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Then what, pray tell, is it being touted as? A more fair system?
Oh, and for the record, Obama's tax rate was less than his secretary's this year too. I guess we should change it to the "Obama Rule" instead.

I'm not sure where we came up with the "middle class pay 30%" nonsense. The average rate of most actual middle class taxpayers is 15%, with those on the low end paying nothing at all. I pay 27% and am not even "middle class" with almost all of that paid on taxable income, not capital gains.

 

[EctopicFetus]

I'm not sure where we came up with the "middle class pay 30%" nonsense. The average rate of most actual middle class taxpayers is 15%, with those on the low end paying nothing at all. I pay 27% and am not even "middle class" with almost all of that paid on taxable income, not capital gains.

The accounting trick they use is social security which is technically a tax. Since after you earn ~110k you stop paying.. thats a 12.4% increase on your money.. A total gimmick.

If you simply look at federal income tax your numbers start to look quite different.

The IRS collect between 11-12% of reported income as FEDERAL INCOME tax.. Thats of every dollar earned. Some people pay way more while most pay way less. This is especially the case since 47% of tax filers paid $0.00 in federal income tax.

 

[EctopicFetus]

Oh and GV the middle class get close to 30% if you consider both sides of social security, both sides of medicare, sales tax property tax, tax on gasoline etc.. It does get pretty close.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Oh and GV the middle class get close to 30% if you consider both sides of social security, both sides of medicare, sales tax property tax, tax on gasoline etc.. It does get pretty close.

I don't include those, because property taxes, state taxes, and sales taxes vary widely between states.

If you include them for the "rich" then in states like California, the rich are paying close to 50%. Yet apparently they still aren't paying their "fair share".